ArticleAdvances in medical education and practice2025
Learning and Peer Feedback in Undergraduate Medical Student Simulation.
Article in Advances in medical education and practice, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Simulation-based teaching is an integral part of medical training, providing the opportunity to apply clinical knowledge in a realistic yet controlled environment. The proportion of observers to active participants in the simulation is increasing, owing to the increasing number of medical students. Evidence suggests that using an observer tool can enhance learning, support debriefing and improve observer satisfaction. However, there is a lack of generalisable observer tools designed for use across different simulation scenarios, including both technical and nontechnical skills. We aimed to evaluate the acceptability and perceived usefulness of our novel observer tool and its impact on learning and peer feedback in a medical-student simulation. Methods: We delivered a simulation series to 43 medical students in which observers of simulation completed our CARSEAT observer tool, an acronym for Communication, A-E assessment, Rapport, Situational awareness, Escalation, Application of clinical knowledge, and Teamwork. The participants completed the pre- and post-intervention questionnaires. The study used an unpaired pre-/post- intervention design, with 38 pre- and 34 post-survey respondents. Primary outcomes were perceived usefulness, engagement, and impact on learning and feedback. Descriptive statistics were used for quantitative data, and qualitative data were analysed thematically. Results: 94% of respondents found observing simulation more useful when using the tool than without. The majority agreed that the tool improved aspects of learning and peer feedback. Thematic analysis identified six major themes: (1) impressions of observation, (2) engagement during observation, (3) enhancement of learning, (4) providing peer feedback, (5) useful aspects of the CARSEAT tool, and (6) suggested improvements for the CARSEAT tool. Conclusion: Our novel observer tool improved engagement, enhanced learning, and supported peer feedback during the medical student simulation sessions. The tool's structure and clear domains make it easy to use and generalise across different simulation scenarios, with potential for integration into undergraduate curricula, and wider implementation across institutions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.